Jora Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors.

1
CWP-23695-2015 (O&M)


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH
205
CWP-23695-2015 (O&M)
08.09.2026
Date of Decision:



Jora Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents

Present : Petitioner in person.
Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.


HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral)
CM-5394-CWP-2019
The present application has been filed under Section 151 of
CPC read with Articles 226/227 for placing on record comprehensive
representation as Annexure P-15.
In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed, Annexures P-15 is ordered to be taken on record, subject to all just
exceptions.
Registry is directed to place the same at an appropriate place.
MAIN
1.
This Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of
certiorari
the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of for
quashing the impugned order dated 07.08.2015 (Annexure P-11) passed by
respondent No.2 vide which the statutory appeal of petitioner for not
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
CWP-23695-2015 (O&M)


extending the period of service beyond 55 years has been illegally dismissed
by passing a cryptic order with mala fide intention by confirming order
dated 12.08.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.3 vide which
petitioner was not granted the extension beyond the period of 55 years of
age as completed on 30.10.2013. Further praying for issuance of a writ in
mandamus
the nature of directing respondents to grant the extension to
petitioner up to age of 58 years i.e. upto 31.10.2016 as petitioner has
completed 55 years of age on 31.10.2013 and petitioner remained in service
and used to attend the school but was not allowed to mark presence on
account of pendency of case for grant of approval to extension beyond 55
years after 31.10.2013.
2.
inter alia
Petitioner, who is present in person, , contends that his
claim for extension of service beyond the age of 55 years was wrongly
rejected by the respondents. He submits that the order dated 12.08.2014
(Annexure P-5) was challenged by him before this Court by way of CWP-
8310-2015 , which was disposed of vide order dated 30.04.2015 with a
direction to respondent No.2 to decide his departmental appeal dated
26.11.2014. Pursuant thereto, the appeal was rejected vide impugned order
dated 07.08.2015 (Annexure P-11), primarily by relying upon the alleged
imprisonment of the petitioner, alleged concealment thereof, alleged absence
from duty for 645 days and the consequent doubt regarding his integrity.
The petitioner disputes the aforesaid allegations and submits that his service
record was otherwise good, no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
CWP-23695-2015 (O&M)


against him and he had not been visited with any major penalty. He further
submits that the period of alleged absence was attributable to the
respondents having prevented him from marking his attendance and that the
alleged imprisonment did not justify treating his integrity as doubtful. It is,
thus, contended that the impugned order is arbitrary and unsustainable and
that the petitioner ought to have been granted extension of service up to the
age of 58 years with consequential benefits.
3.
Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer made by
the petitioner on the ground that, in compliance with the order passed by this
CWP-8310-2015
Court in , the appeal dated 26.11.2014 preferred by the
petitioner was duly considered by respondent No.2 in the light of the
relevant instructions issued by the Government of Haryana from time to
time and after scrutinizing the service record of the petitioner. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands
and, therefore, his claim for retention in service up to the age of 58 years has
rightly been rejected by respondent No.2.
3.1
Learned State Counsel further submits that an FIR under
Sections 332, 353, 186 and 452 IPC was registered against the petitioner at
Police Station City, Jind, vide FIR No.149 dated 27.03.2002. It is further
submitted that, in a civil case titled Jai Bhagwan v. Jora Singh , the
petitioner was sentenced to civil imprisonment for a period of one month by
the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jind, vide order dated 21.09.2010, which
was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind, vide order dated
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
CWP-23695-2015 (O&M)


06.11.2012 passed in . Annexure R-1 has been
Jora Singh v. Jai Bhagwan
relied upon in this regard. It is contended that the petitioner concealed the
factum of his imprisonment as well as registration of the aforesaid FIR from
the competent authorities, which amounted to violation of Rule 3 of the
Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1966. It is further submitted that
the petitioner was habitual in remaining absent from duty and, as per his
service record, had remained absent for a total period of 645 days on
different occasions. Learned State Counsel relies upon the instructions
contained in Haryana Government letter No.5663-GS-173/26498 dated
23.10.1973, whereby the entire service record of an employee is required to
be taken into consideration and an employee whose integrity is suspected at
any stage of his career is not to be retained in service beyond the age of 55
years. It is submitted that, in the present case, the service record of the
petitioner raised a doubt regarding his integrity and, therefore, it was not
considered to be in public interest to retain him in service beyond the age of
55 years. Reliance is further placed upon the instructions dated 12.12.1998
and Note 1 to Rule 5.32-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, as
well as the communication dated 10.07.2014 (Annexure R-2), wherein the
integrity of the petitioner was reported to be doubtful. Learned State
Counsel further submits that the impugned order does not amount to
dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Article 311(2) of
the Constitution of India and, therefore, no show-cause notice was required
to be served upon the petitioner before declining extension of service
beyond the age of 55 years. It is lastly submitted that the issue involved in
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
CWP-23695-2015 (O&M)


the present petition is also governed by the Government instructions dated
11.04.2005 relating to consideration of cases for retention of employees in
service beyond the age of 55 years.
4.
I have heard the petitioner as well as learned State Counsel and
gone through the case file with their able assistance.
5.
It transpires that the petitioner has no vested right to
continuation in service beyond the age of 55 years. Extension of service
beyond the age of 55 years is governed by the applicable service rules and
Government instructions and depends upon the assessment of the employee's
service record and the public interest involved. In the present case, the
competent authorities have considered the petitioner's service record and
have recorded reasons for declining his retention beyond the age of 55 years.
6.
The record discloses that the petitioner's case was not declined
on the basis of a solitary circumstance. The respondents have relied upon his
service record showing 645 days of absence from duty over different periods
and, additionally, upon the factum of his having been subjected to civil
imprisonment. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School,
Saimpal, in his communication dated 10.07.2014 (Annexure R-2), recorded
that, on the basis of these circumstances, the integrity of the petitioner
appeared doubtful.
7.
It is also significant that the petitioner was afforded an
opportunity to put forth his case before respondent No.2. The respondents
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
CWP-23695-2015 (O&M)


have placed on record Annexure R-4, whereby the petitioner was called for
personal hearing, and have stated that his written replies and submissions
were duly considered before passing the impugned order dated 07.08.2015
(Annexure P-11). Thus, no violation of the principles of natural justice is
made out.
8.
The contention of the petitioner that the alleged period of
absence was attributable to his having been prevented from marking his
attendance essentially raises a disputed question of fact. Such disputed
factual issues, particularly when the competent authority has examined the
service record and recorded its findings, cannot be re-appreciated by this
Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction merely because another view may
be possible.
9.
Once the competent authority, upon consideration of the overall
service record of the petitioner, formed an opinion that his retention beyond
the age of 55 years was not in public interest, this Court, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, would not
substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority in the
absence of any demonstrated arbitrariness, perversity or violation of the
applicable rules. No such ground has been made out in the present case.
10.
Consequently, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned
order dated 07.08.2015 (Annexure P-11), whereby the petitioner's appeal
was rejected or with the order dated 12.08.2014 (Annexure P-5), declining
extension of his service beyond the age of 55 years.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
CWP-23695-2015 (O&M)


11.
In view of the above and without going further into the merits
of the case, the present writ petition is dismissed.
12.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.

08.09.2026 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
P.C.

JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document